On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:06:53AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > can someone explain to me, why BIND 9 complains when you list CNAMEs > as MX records for hosts? i seem to recall that one should not, but: <snip> > There is one other special case. If the response contains an > answer which is a CNAME RR, it indicates that REMOTE is actually an > alias for some other domain name. The query should be repeated with > the canonical domain name. It's right there in the last sentence. The request will be canonized. It's bad because an extra DNS lookup must be performed to get the A record for the host. BIND < 9 has also always complained. For example: Oct 1 00:05:48 mintaka named[181]: "optonline.net IN MX" points to a CNAME (mail-hub.optonline.net) > according to the RFC, this is not a problem and should be handled > just perfectly... > It is only treated as a warning, unless BIND 9 has decided to elevate the severity to an actual error. The mail gets delivered to the same place it would had the MX pointed to an A name, though, so there's nothing to be gained by listing CNAMEs. noah -- _______________________________________________________ | Web: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/ | PGP Public Key: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/mail.html
Attachment:
pgpIDS_jO7VHw.pgp
Description: PGP signature